Link to student handout for more information.

Times New Roman, 12 point font, double-spaced

Put word count above title when finished

(Cut and paste your prescribed title)

Begin essay here.

Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in "bubbles" where some information

and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences.

The natural sciences, dedicated to understanding the intricacies of the physical world

through observation and experimentation, confront the challenge posed by the exclusionary

nature of knowledge acquisition in “bubbles.” What qualifies something as a bubble is its

exclusionary nature (Ekström et al.). For the purposes of this essay, bubbles will be defined as

groups of scholars from different areas of study who may have a tendency to keep

information to themselves. Here, these groups of scholars can keep their bubbles sealed

tightly, exchanging knowledge and information only among themselves. On the contrary,

these groups of people can also interpolate, bringing in ideas and information from other

disciplines or subjects. This essay will explore two perspectives that give us a feel for when

and why knowers may want to pop the bubble or bubble-up.

In advocating for inclusivity, the first perspective contends that the natural sciences

should strive to be as diverse as possible, actively seeking out different viewpoints and

information sources. Diverse perspectives and critiques, considered essential for challenging
existing theories and driving innovation, play a crucial role in scientific progress. In the study

of ecosystems, particularly the interdependence of species, excluding certain viewpoints

could hinder our understanding.

One notable case demonstrating the advancement facilitated by interdisciplinary

knowledge exchange is the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) (Nova).

This interdisciplinary approach combines principles from developmental biology with

evolutionary theory, leading to novel and groundbreaking insights into the genetic basis of

morphological evolution. Collaboration between biologists and developmental geneticists

provides a more comprehensive understanding of how changes in developmental processes

influence the evolution of distinct traits across species.

The second perspective, acknowledging the potential drawbacks of knowledge

bubbles, argues that a certain degree of specialization and focused research within specific

domains is essential for in-depth exploration and advancement in the natural sciences. Highly

specialized knowledge and expertise are required to tackle complex scientific problems and

make significant breakthroughs in specific fields. In the study of genetics, for example,

highly specialized knowledge about the intricacies of a particular species' genome, such as

the study of the telling apart Hairy Woodpeckers from Downy Woodpeckers (Vermont

Center for Ecostudies), is crucial for advancements in genetic research and new classification

systems.

In Perspective 2, the necessity to exclude certain knowledge is stressed to ensure the

efficiency and depth of scientific exploration. This perspective argues that in highly

specialized fields, a focused approach is required to tackle complex scientific problems and
make significant breakthroughs. While inclusivity is valuable, not all information or

viewpoints may contribute meaningfully to specific scientific endeavors. Excluding irrelevant

or tangential knowledge allows researchers to allocate resources more efficiently and focus

on the depth of understanding within their specialized domain, ensuring advancements in

specific fields are not diluted or impeded by unnecessary information.

While the first perspective emphasizes the importance of diverse perspectives in

challenging and refining existing theories and offers an interpolation of knowledge, it might

overlook situations where specialized knowledge is essential for in-depth exploration. The

argument for inclusivity could potentially lead to dilution of focused research efforts. While

the second perspective recognizes the importance of specialized knowledge for in-depth

exploration and significant breakthroughs and highlights the efficiency gained by excluding

irrelevant or tangential knowledge in focused research, it risks potential exclusion of valuable

perspectives, hindering innovation. This may lead to stagnation and resistance to novel ideas.

Most importantly, both perspectives fail to consider alternate motives that may compel

knowers to create bubbles. For instance, while the two perspectives assume that bubbles are

created and popped depending on the knower’s needs, they rule out the possibility of some

knowers deliberately creating bubbles to conceal knowledge. Here, it may not be accurate to

assume that knowers will choose between bubbles and popping the bubbles purely based on

scientific efficiency and merit: there should have been a deeper understanding of the

knowers’ reasons for creating bubbles (Gerbina).

Acknowledging the merits of both perspectives, the natural sciences face a complex

task in navigating knowledge bubbles. Balancing inclusivity and specialization is imperative

for fostering a dynamic scientific community. While the first perspective emphasizes the need
to actively break down bubbles for a more comprehensive understanding, the second

perspective highlights the importance of specialized knowledge for in-depth exploration.

Given this dilemma, government funded (or other) scientific initiatives should try to give

different branches of science opportunities to interact, or pop their respective bubbles, but

should be careful as to not force interpolation on areas of study that need to be highly

specialized. As the natural sciences evolve, finding innovative ways to navigate knowledge

bubbles will be crucial for advancing our understanding of the physical world.

Nova. “What Is Evo Devo?” Pbs.org, Nova, 26 Oct. 2009,

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/what-evo-devo/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Ekström, Axel G, et al. “Self-Imposed Filter Bubbles: Selective Attention and

Exposure in Online Search.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, vol. 7, 1

Aug. 2022, pp. 100226–100226,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958822000604,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100226. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“Why Are Hairy Woodpeckers and Downy Woodpeckers so Hard to Tell Apart? |

Vermont Center for Ecostudies.” Vermont Center for Ecostudies | Uniting People

& Science for Conservation, 18 Dec. 2017,

vtecostudies.org/blog/why-are-hairy-woodpeckers-and-downy-woodpeckers-so-

hard-to-tell-apart/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Gerbina, T V. “Science Disinformation: On the Problem of Fake News.” Scientific and

Technical Information Processing, vol. 48, no. 4, 1 Oct. 2021, pp. 290–298,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8879168/,

https://doi.org/10.3103/s0147688221040092. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.